Lesson 14/16: Intelligent Design Part 2

[rafikgl]

@glovergj But somethings science admits are unexplainable by natural processes. for example the law of conservation of matter and energy states that they can not be created so we have to invoke supernatural creation and science has to be silent here.

[Lioobayoyo]

@rafikgl

yeah that's true.

that's why the author of the video, i presume, stress the point that there is no questioning of the intelligent design or questioning any faith here.

but it doesn't help science, it is not science (in the modern sense). It doesn't lead to testable things, or fail if any. Hence it doesn't lead to predictions, or leads to false ones (depending on interpretation). It also lack objectivity (definition) So it doesn't help any field, especially biology, medecine, etc...

[lardhat]

Excellent video!

Thanks, glovergj.

That's not you, is it?

[manutdfan4321]

great stuff gordon btw do you mind telling me what that song was at the begining

[owchywawa]

I've enjoyed your videos, but I think you misunderstood a few thing about ID. ID does not discard common decent and it does not necessarily invoke miracles. A miracle is not necessary to modify a species' genetics.

The reason one might invoke ID is not because there is a gap in scientific knowledge, but rather because of characteristics only known to something which is designed.

[michalchik]

@owchywawa The problem is two fold. There is a tautology implicit in the assertion that a natural phenomena must be designed because it has the properties of designed things. Life is designed because it has order, order only comes from design, how do we know. Because everything we see as ordered we claim must be designed. Also, ID almost exclusively is used on gaps. Don't know where life came from ID, don't know where the Cambrian explosion came from ID.

[owchywawa]

@michalchik It's not that it must be design, but rather that it is the best explanation. Of course, this is debatable considering evolution, but they think evolution is wrong, so you can see where they are coming from.

I agree on the gaps thing to some degree, but (1) you can't expect them to create a theory which explains something for which we already have a good explanation and (2) ID explains the appearance of design, so that's not a gap in knowledge.

[nlever]

This guy is really struggling... give it up man, God ans science are NOT compatible. Poor guy, its kind of painful to watch...

[Omnitrix12]

You treat ID too crassly. ID does not inhibit study; it merely gives a different reason to study something. Just as a student may study Shakespeare to understand the author's mind, so a true Intelligent Design adherent ought to look into the creation to see the mind and workings of God.

Your attitude, on the other hand, says in essence that we should hang God on a hook when we step into the lab.

[michalchik]

@Omnitrix12 You are confusing scientific study with student work. ID fails to motivate scientific investigation because the answer to all questions is God did it because that was the best way to do it. The only motive in ID is to know down ideas that seem to conflict with certain naive interpretations of the bible.

[Omnitrix12]

@michalchik I would be very surprised if you have ever spoken to anyone who seriously studied intelligent design.

[michalchik]

@Omnitrix12 I have talked to dozens of people who claimed to have studied intelligent design and listened to "experts" in the field. Their knowledge of basic math and science foundational to what they are claiming is non-existent. Honestly, these people are not scientists, they are people who specialize in duping people without a scientific education by sounding scientific.

If you think you know of an exception, let me know, but I am probably already familiar with their arguments.

[Omnitrix12]

@michalchik I say this not for your benefit, fo I am convinced you are beyond reason. But because of a promise I made to the charleton in these videos last year, and for the benefit of those who are open to the truth, let me give six examples. Dr. John Baumgardner, Dr. Ian Macreadie, Dr. Danny Faulkner, Dr. Walter Veith (who converted from your delusions based on evidence seen in his field), Dr. David Menton, and Dr. D Russel Humphreys.

[michalchik]

@Omnitrix12 Yes, you can scrape through the hundreds of thousands of Ph.D's out there and find people mental illnesses or frustrated conmen. I could probably add another 20 onto your list. Their scientific work is almost never on the areas related to their creation faith. You mention W. Veidth, he is a nutrition physiologist and has done minor work even in that irrelevant area. He has made some bucks off popular books against evolution. Are you going to argue for alchemy because of Newton?

[michalchik]

@Omnitrix12 If though, you think any of them have particularly compelling arguments. direct me to what yo think is their best scientific work. I will check to see if I have seen it before and if not, I will read it.

[michalchik]

@Omnitrix12 Oh BTW, you are not convinced I am beyond reason. You freaked out and refused to talk to me anymore when i pointed out that you were a follower of Paul First not Jesus. That is your real beef with me.

[Omnitrix12]

@michalchik I'm glad you brought that up. Let's bring this to a close once and for all, shall we? My stance is this: Jesus' whole purpose of being here was to redeem people from sin, a topic which is very understated today and very much elaborated on in Romans. So also is why God permits wickedness in the world, much more extensively so than in the Gospels or the Pentateuch. Are you following so far?

[michalchik]

@Omnitrix12 So you are saying that one man who had one encounter with Jesus on the Road to Damascus after Jesus' ministry has a better understanding of sin and salvation than Jesus did during his ministry of 3 years. I think you are clearly choosing the portion of the Bible that best suits your theological desires over the eyewitness reports of Jesus and his own words. Paul is better at explaining things than Jesus? You really believe that? You love Paul and avoid Jesus because of what you want.

[Omnitrix12]

@michalchik It's not a question of who COULD explain sin the best, but who - or rather, which writing (since John attested that many of Jesus' teachings and miracles went unwritten) DOES explain it best. Jesus mainly ministered to Jews and to Gentiles who lived around Jews, so He had little need to explain what sin was. They already knew.

[Omnitrix12]

But in the book of Romans, Paul was writing to a largely Gentile audience who knew little of God's law or His past interactions with mankind, much like the average person today. Jesus did not have inferior aptitude to Paul at explaining the matter, He simply had less need to do it. His earthly ministry was not as geographically widespread s that of His early followers such as Paul; , He got them started so that they could become the evangelistic force which would spread to the world.

[michalchik]

@Omnitrix12 So Jesus did not have the foresight to anticipate the need for gentiles to understand sin. Have you actually read Jesus' words in the synoptic gospels, he spends half of them specifically talking about what is sin, what is the law, and how to enter the kingdom of heaven. Seriously, if you think what you are saying is anything but spin you slept through those gospels. You are actually trying to defend the position that Jesus's words are less relevant that Pauls. This is sad.

[Omnitrix12]

@michalchik Oh, please. Would you say, then, that the alphabet is more significant than the works of William Shakespeare (or perhaps you would prefer Karl Marx)? That an Gold-Medal Olympic gymnast accomplished a more remarkable feat simply learning to walk? That the basic simple machines are of greater importance than an artficial heart or a respiratory apparatus?

[michalchik]

@Omnitrix12 So here you are implying that Jesus is primitive compared to Paul. I think you forget that Jesus was arguing with the Rabbi's when he was 12. He was not a simple man. He was not forced to end his ministry at 33 (depending on the book and interpretation). He completed it and allowed the circumstances that led to his death to take hold.

[Omnitrix12]

@michalchik @michalchik These are the same as the link between Paul and Jesus, for Paul's teaching was crucial to that of Jesus, and Jesus' was fulfilled in Paul, just as the alphabet is the basis for the written word, and the written word is fulfilled in the alphabet.

[michalchik]

@Omnitrix12 Peter was the rock on which Jesus built his church. John was the most beloved. Paul was... the asshole Jewish pharisee who started his career leading the slaughter of Christians and ended his life become the first great christian Pharisee. Yes, he stopped killing people, that was good, but no where does Jesus give him the authority to interpret his words, build the church, or prescribe the path to salvation. Read the synoptic gospels carefully and you will see how Paul misleads.

[Omnitrix12]

@michalchik Apparently the early church thought otherwise. And if Paul's writings are in the Bible by mistake, how can we be sure any of the Bible is true and valid?

[michalchik]

@Omnitrix12 So once again you say other peoples opinions are more important than Jesus. Spin, Spin, Spin, The church never makes mistakes, history proves that, right? Which version of the Bible is infallible, the early ones without mark 16: 9-16 and John 8: 1-8 or the later ones ones with them?

Do you believe James 2:16-26 and Mathew 5-7 or do you focus on Paul's words and fool yourself into thinking that salvation is by grace alone?

As you quote, by their fruits you shall know them.

[Omnitrix12]

@michalchik Salvation is by grace, recieved through faith which is itself a gift of grace, and the works are the evidence of faith. As Jesus said of the Pharisees, that they did the work of their father, the devil, so it is that those who become the children of God likewise begin to do the works of their Father.

[Omnitrix12]

@michalchik It is seen, for example, in tribes where little or no clothing is the preferred mode of dress, that after they are introduced to Christianity, they begin to clothe themselves more modestly with no direct influence from the missionaries to that effect.

[michalchik]

And Jesus talked about the importance of modest dress to salvation where? You are confusing Paul's sex obsessed prudishness with Jesus lessons on virtue. Are Burkas a true sign of faith? Still all of this is a distraction. The bottom line is that you are fighting me, because you want to read and memorize Paul in preference to Jesus. Why are you fighting so hard to avoid Jesus? Since saving yourself seems to be your priority realize Paul will not give you grace or how to know when you have it.

[Omnitrix12]

@michalchik No, I am not saying that modest dress is necessary to salvation, but that it is a result of the faith which brings about salvation. Get with the program. Honestly, it's clear that nothing I say or do will satisfy you, because you are convinced Paul was a con man (as others have been, and they tried to prove it. Guess what? They were converted as a direct result of their own research). So tell me why I should keep talking to you.

[Omnitrix12]

@michalchik And if you think salvation is through works as well as faith, explain the following, in the words of Jesus Himself: When He was being crucified, and the one thief appealed to Him for grace, recognizing him by his words as God, Jesus assured him that he would join Him in paradise (i.e. Heaven) that very day. What, pray tell, had that thief done to earn salvation, except to admit his own sinfulness and to appeal to Jesus Christ in faith?

[michalchik]

I am glad you are finally looking the synoptic Gospels. Read the accounts of Jesus and the thieves on Calvary, and read those accounts side by side in parallel, try to reconcile them, and then get back to me if you still think there is a question there.

[Omnitrix12]

@michalchik I have. In light of the different authorships and emphasis placed on particular parts, they make perfect sense.

[michalchik]

@Omnitrix12 So apparently you have not read them in parallel., but my point was not the contradictions. I specifically directed you to the sections on Calvary and the robbers. In two accounts its says both the robbers mocked him. In one account it says one mocked and the other defended him. The defense of the innocent while you are being put to death is a virtuous work that is a demonstration that this man's spirit had turned towards Jesus. If that account is real, its message is clear.

[Omnitrix12]

@michalchik Exactly. The work showed the heart change. Works SHOW faith, they do not REPLACE it.

[michalchik]

@Omnitrix12 I wish that you would swallow you pride. Admit you are making a gross theological mistake and start memorizing the words of Jesus. Then make sense of Paul's words in light of a thorough knowledge and understanding of Jesus'. It is simply pride that stands between you and Jesus.

[Omnitrix12]

@michalchik You are a fine one to say what stands between me and Jesus. Show me one piece of evidence that you have any part with Him at all. Di He not say, "By your fruits you shall know them"?

[michalchik]

@Omnitrix12 You asked. I spend two hours a week tutoring homeless kids through "school on wheels". I spent my childhood trick-or-treating for UNICEF instead of candy. I protest war, weapon proliferation, the death penalty and try to prevent them. I give to our troops through operation helmet. I contribute to Amnesty international and participate in their urgent actions,and I give blood. I actually made some of my real christian friends through these activities.

[Omnitrix12]

@michalchik So you think God will accept these works of yours as added on to the blood of Jesus, as if His own life were insufficient, whereas I acknowledge that there is nothing I can do to blot out even the least of my sins, and I'M the one living in pride? Get your head out of the sand, oh you ostritch!

[michalchik]

@Omnitrix12 No, I don't think god will accept anything because I don't think God exists. I just do it because I care about morality not my salvation. OTOH you face a dilemma, you seem to believe that that faith is necessary to salvation, works are a sign of faith, and "Jesus said ... If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you." What mountains of good have you moved?

[Omnitrix12]

@michalchik More than you know. And if that's your attitude, put a lid on lecturingme about howto have a relationship with someone who, in your view, doesn't exist.

[michalchik]

@Omnitrix12 The essentail point here is that i don't believe Jesus is divine, but I actually care more about what he said and did than you who claim to think he is god and claim to have a personal relationship with him. Frankly I think it is fear that turns you away from Jesus, You know his standards are high and you don't like the implication that your faith in him is not evident. That is why you turn to Paul hoping for the easy way out. Paul, like the pharisees demands nothing but doctrine.

[Omnitrix12]

@michalchik If you think Paul expects nothing in the way of actions, you've never read Philemon. Come to think of it, you've never seriously read most of his letters.

[michalchik]

@Omnitrix12 Paul's expectations are almost always about propriety and condemning those that are not orthodox. Philemon is a weird text for you to chose. Read it carefully. Paul is following the hebraic law concerning the return of runaway of slaves to their master and pleading that the christian slave be treated better (as more than just a slave) but there is no mention of emancipation or righteousness, just that Philemon owes Paul and is subordinate to him and he expects that to be honored.

[Omnitrix12]

@michalchik Congratulations. You just contradicted yourself. I need no further proof that you are as foolish as the Pharisees you yourself decry. Good day, sir, and good riddance.

[ccheng21]

absolute genius :) A Cyclone is proof of intelligent design, only by reference to irreducible complexity :) haha

[ogrimdoombringer]

Nice job. I will take a look through your other videos. I am impressed. Kudos.

[TailsSpain]

Great video!

[rmcgov00leeuedu]

to imply that teaching ID in any way inhibits scientific discovery is utterly and completely false. If you'll notice, it is always the creationists that have the burden of proof to examine the cell in all it's complexity, where are Darwinists try to make it appear as simple as possible in order to make abiogenisis feasible.

[glovergj]

I don't have to imply antything. I'm saying it outright. The fact that no new discoveries are coming out of I.D. speaks for itself.

[rmcgov00leeuedu]

You are deceived. It is the ID scientists that MUST look deeper into the human anatomy, because complexity always favors the ID side of the argument.

[glovergj]

Ok. Then there should be loads of research being produce by ID. Hmm... I wonder where it is....

"...because comlexity always favors the ID side of the argument."

This shows you have no? clue what you are talking about. Are you saying that a snowflake or a crystal are evidence of ID? And what exactly is the "ID side of the argument" anyway?

[rmcgov00leeuedu]

Actually, I do have a ? clue what I am talking about. A snowflake is not alive, - an invalid argument. The ID side of the argument is that the single minimal cell (the simplest form of life) has irreducible complexity composing of 60,000 protein molecules, that have to be in the right order or the cell isn't a cell. The odds of the assemblage occurring though chemical processes chance is 1 in 10 to the 4,478,296th power.

[glovergj]

Typical nonsense -- spitting out numbers that are meaningless. Such a bone-headed calculation assumes that all 60,000 protiens would have to appear randomly at the same time. Evolution posits no such things. People who generate these pointless numbers have no idea how evolution even works. Ireducible complexity is just another way of saying "we haven't figured that out yet". My laptop would seem irreducibly complex to somebody 100 years ago.

That's exactly why ID is worthless in the lab.

[circusOFprecision]

@glovergj

I want to agree with this. But it's presuppositionalism, and it is very limiting to the expansion of human understanding. We HAVE to stay within the current scientific paradigm because it is sooooo correct. No, dude, you gotta think deeper. Theistic evolution is alright, but it easily falls into the philosophical pitfalls of both materialistic philosophy and liberal biblical interpretation. How is that helpful when searching for truth?

[Meesasan]

I understand his point on how ID can be useless in a lab but it provides a way for Christians to understand and explain their natural world without the mechanisms of macro-evolution.Micro-evolutio­n is testable and observable in the short time frame of modern science. I can't believe in macro-evolution. So my question is this: At what point on the evolutionary tree did humans gain a soul. We must realize that we are not just the sum of our biological parts but we are also spiritual in nature.

[stango141]

Evolution contradicts a expanding universe running it's enthalpy down by every second. The more time goes by the more expanded and less orderly the universe becomes. Evolution is the opposite of this thought. I guess in the small amount of time and space life takes up. You could say we can gain energy and still have a net lose in enthalpy. Even though I think thermodynamics contradicts evolution it's possible (even how unlikely) for evolution to have gained the energy needed to occur.

[peehead99]

I simply can't believe that this weary canard is still doing the rounds, deary me.

Read this

w w w (dot) swarmagents (dot) cn/thesis/doc/jake_230 (dot) pdf

[glovergj]

So according to your misunderstanding of entropy, the ice, crystals, tornadoes, hurricanes, sand dunes, snoflakes, and all other self-organizing systems are also impossible. I can't believe this tire old argument is still being used. How many time has it been blown out of the water by making a simple distinction between open and closed systems?

[stango141]

You really didn't understand what I said. I am talking about the whole universe. I admitted there is a chance since a lot of energy is generated from the sun light and gravitational pull. Even if something is very unlikely doesn't mean it can't and won't occur. In the end you still back to the big question. Is this all chance have everything in the world works the way it does or was it designed. If you believe in a creator, you have to go with these natural mechanics as gods design.

[stango141]

Otherwise you have to think it's all chance. I believe god created the universe just as a new clock. We see it winding down all the time. He made it to support it self. It doesn't need his magical hand to keep it running. So all these natural mechanics where designed to happened to keep the universe running. I know god and I have felt him. I am not going to take a human theory over his word. We should search for his knowledge and truth, but no be clouded by our own egos.

[glovergj]

I agree with you on that. I see design in everything, but since God created the universe with the potential to self-organize and created novelty and complexity (emergence), contingency also plays a role in the creative process. As a reformed Christian, I believe that all of this is under the providence of God, who not only creates, but sustains the universe he brought into existence. But none of that is science, nor can it be proven or disproven by science.

[stango141]

See the problem isn't ID proponents want it taught as science. They just don't want evolution taught. I agree 100%. I turned away from god because of evolution. When I started learning physics and the grand order of the universe, I started to believe in a god. When I finally watched a creationist video questioning all of evolution and age of the earth, I finally could believe in the bible again. Jesus came to me that day and I know for a fact now god is real and the bible is his word.

[glovergj]

ID doesn't function on the scientific level. There are no breakthrough technologies that are a result of ID. Evolution, as a model of biological history, has led to all sorts of discoveries. So it IS a problem that some want ID taught at the expense of sound science.

[glovergj]

Moreover, the purpose of science is to provide coherent paradigms that help us investigate the created order. Science does nont exist simply to reinforce our faith commitments. And scientific theories are judged on how well they explain the known data. Not on how compatible they are with our theology. So what now? If you see convincing evidence for evolution you will leave God again? You have given yourself a false ultimatum. There are many God-fearing Christians who believe in evolution.

[stango141]

Name one thing the theory of evolution (species changing into other species) has giving us, except a way to disprove god. All I can see is it helps classify species so darwinist can say see look it's true. Origin Evolution is untestable and unprovable. We can never know animal A came from animal B. ID is somewhat provable because anyone who has accepted Jesus knows he's real. Everyone I know has the exact same experience when they except Jesus. I know it's just not my own delusion.

[glovergj]

The theory of evolution give us a working model that unifies the life sciences (biology, anatomy, paleontology, biogeography, molecular genetics, embryology) with the geological sciences. For instance, when Niel Shubin and his team set out to find the missing link between fish and tetrapods, they used the fossil record to bracket the target sediment between jawed fish and early fish-like amphibiams.

[glovergj]

Using the geological principles of plate techtonics and and superposition, they begain looking in the shallow Dovonian seas of the canadian arctic, where 375 million year old sediments are exposed at the surface. That's how the first limbed fish, Tiktaalik roseae was discovered. See tiktaalik (dot) uchicago (dot) edu/searching4Tik (dot) html

[glovergj]

And you don't have to choose between Jesus and accepting evolution as a useful scientific paradigm. There are many evangelicals who are also practicing scientists that accept both.

[nyarlotep]

thermodynamics does not contradict evolution because earth is not a closed system.

[Omnitrix12]

@nyarlotep Then where does the sun get its energy from? Sooner or later, all energy has to come from somewhere.

[nyarlotep]

@Omnitrix12 Oh you are so funny. The sun produces energy. In what is called nuclear fision... A closed system is one in which there is no energy production. Yes all energy comes from somewhere, in this case the sun is the source, once all the fision is done the sun will get cooler and then you will have a closed system with no new energy incoming. Until then evolution will keep working.

[stango141]

Evolution as the beginning of the universe is on the same level as ID. They both have no answers and usefullness in scientific discovery. Both are philosophys and should be taught as such. You discription of ID is for when people can't figure and give up. They say only god knows to not humble their own intelligence. I don't see ID blocking and scientific discovery only strengthing the morals of a people. If you believe in evolution, you aren't special your just a chance.

[glovergj]

Evolution is a working theory for the life sciences and consequently has nothing to do with cosmology. Only apologists for creationism habitually confuse the two, which tells me that you haven't read much scientific litareture on the subject. But do not worry, there are many great resources out there written by Evangelical Christians who do science for a living. You should read and prayerfully consider some of those before simply repeating the criticisms of others.

[stango141]

This is a play on words all evolutionist love to use. They say evolution doesn't touch the beginning but it does. Because you can't have it without the first ancestor. To tie evolution to it's begining makes it seem religious and not a science. Evolutions want us to look at the fact of natural seletion and adaptation and have everyone except the whole theory to the first ancestor, but doesn't want to get into anymore than that. They know they'll expose Evolution if they do.

[stango141]

I know all about the big bang and expansion of universe, which seems to line up with the bible. If Evolution means the proven facts of genetics, adaptation, and natural selection then they are correct. When they push the word evolution on to a common ancestor then it is in the same category as ID and cosmology. All three are guessing. Only thing we know is the universe is expanded which makes it seems there had to be a beginning. Does that prove the bible or the big bang? I don't think so.

[glovergj]

Evolution has no theory of abiogenesis, or the origin of life. Darwin assume that a the creator made the first species let nature take over. Others say that aliens planted life on earth (insert laughter here). But evolution is only about what happens next. To fault evolution for not being able to explain the origin of life is like faulting gravitation for not being able to explain the photoelectric effect -- it's simply not part of the theory.